janh
Posts: 1216
Joined: 6/12/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: 2ndACR
If I want historical to that extreme, I will read a book. If you want Hitler etc meddling, then you might as well take 6th Army and allow it to be destroyed in 42. I have no desire to "repeat" history, it has already been done, I got the books and movies for that. I want to see if avoiding those mistakes would have made a difference in the outcome.
I prefer what if's more than anything. What if the last push for Moscow had not happened and the German army dug in, brought forward replacements, the 50 divisions worth of winter gear that was sitting in Poland but got shoved to the way side for fuel and ammo? Would it have made a difference? Since I avoided the massive losses of 41-42 blizzard, inflicted heavy losses to the Russians during the winter offensive because I took the time to winterize my units for added protection, they heavily dug in, made good a lot of losses from the summer campaign, made sure my Panzer Div actually got the tanks I want in the field, would that have made a difference?
If I avoid all the above, suffer no where near the losses the real German Army suffered, then why do my units keep getting smaller and smaller across the board, why cant I select some units to stay "heavy", why must my morale steadily shrink when I am kicking butt and taking names? Because a new year starts? I prefer what little control I have now over another "outside" influence.
The Russian can run all he wants, as fast as he wants, I will do the same thing come winter when I know what is about to happen. Sorry, but every time us German players come up with a strategy that actually preserves our Army, and allows us to also have a heavy fist to hit back with, someone comes along and tries to take it away. Enough is enough.
I agree the Lvov Gambit would likely not be feasible with daily turns, I used it when the game was released, but have also made just as good an advance without using it and still bagged most of those units anyway.
I guess I would also vote for having no such "superior" rules unless optional (which of course allows much bigger gains or defeats, anyway you want to put it). They would be quite contradictory to the present, rather large freedom to optimize.
On the other hand, it also sounds like a challenge to be forced to play under orders. Either sensible ones, or not so much. It probably shouldn't be historical goals, targets, and timeliness (unless historical weather is selected...?), but image you get certain targets assigned for the 41, 42 and 43 offensives as Axis, e.g. AI makes Gorky your target instead of Stalingrad, offering extra VP? Or as a Russian, spring 42 or spring 43 adds a new VP location to Kursk, or Rostov for some extra VP? Doable things.
Then there could also be (further option) true Hitler and Stalin meddling, which I think would offer another, differently layer challenge: Could I manipulte and shuffle things so smartly and still achieve something despite the meddling of the fools messing up everything? Sound there should be some penalties then for failing these goals, or ignoring say stand-fast orders, such as forced withdrawal of officers, or at worst -- perhaps an immediate game end since the "virtual commander" is sacked. Something that forces you balance between the tactic choices, and the well-being of your own person and head. This does seem like the position a Mannstein and other must have found themselves in.
I might try such a bit restricted game, though wouldn't bet I would play more than one GC with it. But it sure sounds like a very different, intriguing challenge and could even be a quite novel feature to gaming of this type. However, before working on that, there is a long list of other things I would hope them to work on first... from reaction orders, to AE-like air combat modeling, and the naval component, to a full production and R&D model for both sides and control over ToE transtions, to true training pools (determining the experience of recruits) and a more meaningful, and logic unit moral mechanic.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Kronolog
Politics - as supply - is however, an integral part of war, and not something that one should overlook if one aspires to give the player the same opportunities and restrictions as those that applied to the generals of the period in question. Of course, exactly how these should be modelled is another question.
The question is, whether the conflict still feels related to its history counterpart if certain factors are left out of the simulation/model. I imagine that no one would argue that if, just for example, allowing certain tank types to run on very little or no fuel (or for the sake of driving the argument to its extreme, the Tigers would be allowed to fly ;) ), this war game would be merely a scifi game. As such, also other factors that did possible give this contest its uniqueness need to be considered to give it a right to be called a simulation of this conflict. But it seems like even there is a lot of space for personal opinion on what contributes to the character, or what exactly the latter is? Freedom of design comes in here...
< Message edited by janh -- 2/9/2012 7:52:57 PM >
|
Printable Version
Game Suggestion - 
RE: Game Suggestion - 
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread